Leafless

Michael Hardner You wrote- " Canada is officially bilingual." If I had a dollar for every time I went over this one I'd be a rich person. How can you possibly perpetuate such a myth? Canada has two official languages English and French and this does not make the country officially bilingual but a country that contains two official languages. There is one province in Canada that is designated officially bilingual and that is New Brunswick no other province is officially bilingual so in fact the country is not officially bilingual. You also wrote- " Spanish has been taught at tax payers expense, as been yoga, and women's studies." Clearly you mean their are classes available with courses in Spanish, yoga and women's studies rather than whole schools devoted to those individual subjests at tax payers expense. Their are only two schooling systems in Canada publicly paid for to perpetuate the official languages of Canada English and French with Quebec offering much less than what is to be desired relating to the promotion of English and offers no bilingualism policies anywhere in Quebec as well discriminates with it's French charter against the English language and it's users.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " But there has been the general idea of promoting national unity through bilingualism. Whether it has been suucessful or not is debateable." Promoting bilingualism is one thing and installing bilingualism forcefully is another thing and this is what the federal government has been doing outside of Quebec after it has been rejected by Canadians. For instance if the federal government ever tried installing bilingualism in Quebec like it has especially Ontario you would have a social uprising. In Ontario it has been relatively successful thanks to the efforts of mayor of Ottawa Bob Chiarelli a staunch supporter of bilingualism and admitted federal Liberal supporter and provincial Premier of Ontario Dalton Mc.Guinty a Federal Liberal supporter of bilingualism. You also wrote- "Your plowing through a bunch of false assumtions, again." Like what??

Michael Harner You wrote- " My father taught a unit of spanish in a small town because there were enough students who wanted to take it. It was done as part of the public school system." Actually learning Spanish or for that matter Chinese makes more sense than learning French. These languages are more prominent on the world stage. You also wrote- " Iam trying to fiqure out what you're getting at." You can learn what you want. The point is for years an artifical demand has being created pertaining to the French language especially relating to employment in the federal public service and spread and promoted federally into provinces and cities in a very discriminatory manner. Obliterating English and associated jobs to accomodate minority French when the provinces are not officially bilingual is carring on the battle of 'the plains of abraham" federally promoted is a bit extreme wouldn't you think?

geoffrey You wrote- ' Iam with you on bilingualism. but by the same token, we should be barring Spanish instruction from our schools too then, I mean why fund a group of students who want to learn something." Your original inquiry was "how does learning French make you a separatist". Your current reply does not address that separatist question but leans on 'bilingualism" but not relating to being part of separatist ideologies but rather with the emphasis on 'learning'. I doubt very much if Spanish is taught in any Canadian primary or public school at tax payers expense. But if private schools are offering foreign language instruction --fine, as you are paying for it and not the public and is not part of a discriminatory, offensive minority movement.

geoffrey You wrote- " How does learning French make you a separatist?" Why is Canada not officially bilingual? Because it was rejected by Canadians. But nevertheless the federal government still continues to forces it's dicriminatory bilingual policy (propagated by the former Liberal government) in the federal government and freely promotes the French language out of it's federal jurisdiction into primarily English provinces forcing English Canadians even cities to become bilingual. With English and French being 'official languages' paves the way for French to be educated and paid for by provincial tax payers to support their separate French schools in primarily English provinces and French emmersion in English schools with provinces like Ontario further forced by the 'French services Act' to provide a wide assortment of tax payer services. So in fact even though 'official bilingualism' was rejected it is being implemented whether English Canadians 'like it or not' and for no specific pupose since Canada is commercially English and French is not required or needed in any province outside of Quebec. Separatist sentiments cannot help being padded by the discriminatory actions of the federal government and provinces like Ontario for bending to the whims for costly useless bilingualism.

Marbleheader You wrote- " What do I have left? The comfort of this mexican amnesty quilt" Ha- ha- ha ---good post. Kick em' all out!

I think passports are a great idea and will give both countries that added level of protection. The only ones I suspect that would oppose passports are the ones with something to hide. The U.S. and Canada are not the same country and both deserve the right to help protect the entry of undesirables.

Riverwind You wrote- " Because donations to churches that simply pay to keep a private social club running in the suburbs are not true charitable donations." Says who Riverwind???? You?? Afraid not as Canadian law decides that factor. There are four general categories Canadian registered charities to have exclusively charitable purposes by the common law. In this regard the courts have idenified four general categories of charitable purposes. (1)- Relief of poverty (2) Advancement of education (3) Advancement of religion (3) Other puposes beneficial to the community in a way the law regards as a charity.

The problem with guest workers' is where does it end. Certain industries might cry the blues that they can't get help to fill a certain job. But the main reason is they are not paying realistic wages. So how are guest workers going to alleviate that situation and will more and more industries take advantage of that same line of thought. To hire illegals or guest workers is actually subsidizing the labour rate of that particular industry. Sometimes this is done by government offering incentives to that industry to help reduce it's cost to provide employment for existing Canadians. But guest workers or illegals is pure exploitation --that is that industry is making use of a resource (labour) to line it's own pockets. In addition to that the practice of hiring illegals or guest workers obviously keeps home grown Canadians out of the job market ( for many reasons) who could be forced to rely on welfare, living with their parents etc. for their entire life. This is fact for many Canadians who cannot afford to support themselves yet anyone else is because of unrealistic wages in this country. More schooling is not the answer as there are only so many better paying jobs in this country. Ans as a matter of fact the onus is on employers presently to accept people with high school or less is that a college or university education is NOT REQUIRED to do many of the jobs that presently require a college or university degree. Guest and illegal workers are good for buisness and to a point government but only sinks the Canadian worker and this countries future and is responsible for higher welfare rolls and associated subsidies of one sort or another.

I used 'best qualified' to describe the candidate most suited for the job but agree this word sounds a little to extreme as to suggest certain qualifications are necessary when in fact it is the most 'politcally desiarable' is the most important criteria relating to a leader of a political party. So I agree with Hicksey and Slavik that the word 'best person or politician' is better suited than 'best qualified'.

Riverwind You wrote- " The fouding fathers of this country realized that trying to create a state based on the hedgemony of a single culture was not possible . The principle is the same even if the words multicultural is not used." You hypothesis is badly flawed. PROOF PLEASE! You also wrote- " So the ambigious wording was intended by the authors to convey acceptance of many beliefs- not just one." PROOF PLEASE! You also wrote- " The social institutions we have do not exist because of Christianity- most of them have roots in Greek and Roman cultures that predate Cristianity." So what are you saying ---All cultures rightfully own Canada??????

Michael Hardner You wrote- " You say geoffrey was being offensive." You have the wrong poster. I said Riverwind is being offensive. But what geoffrey said doesn't hold water as Canada was never a theocracy in the sense Islamic countries are. The level of control Christianity has over the population is almost nil and is a 'take it or leave it' religion as compared to Islam where you can face execution for even converting to another religion. The point is Canada provides the freedom to believe in whichever religion you believe in including Islam and other imported religions. We have certain constitutional guarntees concerning funding Catholic and secular education. But unfortunately these religions were not part of the country at the time of confederation and this is what you have a hard time understanding. There are no guarantees for that type of religious support. Canada DOES HAVE A VIBRANT HISTORY and it is still PRIMARILY CHRISTIANS that are building this country in virtually every category. Even atheist have more of an input than all the imported religions combined relating to building Canada.

Riverwind You wrote- " The provisions for RC schools are the first examples of multiculturalism and not a symbol and not a symbol of exclusivity of Christianity." These provisions were made relating to the origins of this country contained in Constitution of 1867 and not the Charter of 'Rights and Freedoms' which was long before multi-culturalism was ever dreamed of and became policy. If you want to make some kind of loose attachment to this it would be related to bi-cultural not multicultural. You also wrote- " If the authors were so convinced that it should refer to the Christian God they would have used terms like Christ and Jesus to make sure there was no room for misinterpretation." At that time in 1867 the British victors religion ruled and there was no other god to make reference to. Christianity was the religion at that time and still is the major or principle religion of Canada. You are being offensive with your interpretations that clearly show a disrespect for Christianity and Christians in general along with Christian traditons and customs responsible for the society we have to-day.

geoffrey You wrote- " Martin is an Anglophone though. Which means we'd be due for a Fracophone." But this is not entirely true is it. Paul Martin should be considered French. He is a franco-Ontarian who lived most of his adult life in Quebec and represents a Montreal riding. And in the leadership convention in 1968 Jean Chretien didn't respect this tradition when he ran against John Turner and lost. So in fact we should be due for an English speaking Liberal PM. I always thought this traditon was always culturally tainted or even racial so to speak concerning social and political identity. Best qualified I think should be the bottom line.

I came across an interesting media article relating to ' to maintain the tradition of alternating between English and French leaders.' Montreal - area Liberal MP Denis Coderre said "the liberal party should think twice about dropping it's winning formula of alternating between French and English leaders that allowed it to dominate federal politics during the past century." What do you think? Is this in fact an important criteria to winning elections anymore or do you think the job simply goes to the most qualified candidate?

sami You wrote- " It's funny I have exactly the same assessment of you." The way you come to conclusions I'd fiqure that anyways. In reference to religion anyone who thinks 2%-Islam of the population is equal to 72%-Christianity of the population regarding culture, traditons and values needs to evaluated concerning his or her mental state.

Riverwind You wrote- " There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that supports Christianity per se." Yes, there is! The Constitution Act 1867 guarantees two systems of publicly funded education in Ontario...Roman Catholic and Public. And Quebec is guaranteed it's right to it's R.C. Christian religion. You also wrote- " Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law." Also who do you think the God ( spelled with a capital 'G') is they are referring from British rule who gave us our constitution?? Or do you just might think it has something to do with Christianity?

Riverwind You wrote- " Christianity and Islam are the same thing as far as Iam concerned." And that's what the problem is ...our views differ. You refuse to acknowledge Christianity relating to the roots of this country and aspects supporting Christianity in our Constitution. Why not throw away the rest of our culture to?

FTA Lawyer You wrote- " How does this strike the members of the forum?" This is unbelivable! But sounds typically Canadian, but must be addressed. Maybe you could explain FTA, why Alberta courts put this gut behind bars initially without checking 'First' for other Canadian arrest warrants to verify if he is wanted elsewhere or does this matter?

Sure, I'd feel comfortable using my real name providing no other personal information is revealed.

If anybody is aware and knows anything about good old water vapour as a predominant geenhouse gas and is created naturally and intensifies with natural population growth. But also is produced greatly by manmade devices you should understand George W. Bush's statement is correct. The only problem 'determined or not' is we really cant do much about either.

sami You wrote- " You have a right to your opinions and I have a right to make you accountable to them." How are you making me accountable concerning my opinions??? As a matter of fact you sound like some sort of disciple rambling on in a dictatorial non-sensensical manner. Anything I contribute to this board is done purely voluntarily by my hand not yours. But any further rambling by sami will guarantee pushing the IGNORE button.

Riverwind You wrote- " There was a room in my university with a sign on the door called the 'Christian Club'. I never went in it but passed by it almost daily. It's existence certaintly did not bother me. A similar room for Muslims is no different." There is a difference as the Islamic religion is an imported volatile religion as attested by acts of violence throughout the world as we speak. Canada offers you the right to the religion of your choice. In this country we also have Catholic schools paid for by the tax payer. It's to bad you don't understand or refuse see the difference concerning Christianity our countries main religion.

Warwick Green You wrote- " And women would be back to being beaten, barefoot and pregnant." Hell no, that's changed. We want them educated, well fed, well dressed making lots of moolah not babies. Well, there are exceptions like Gregg.

sami You wrote- " Thank god. I wouldn't want my children exposed to potential bigots." There is nothing unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant I said that fits the definiton of a bigot considering acts of extreme violence the world is faced with concerning followers of your specific religion. I have a right to express discontent with your suggestion of a Muslim prayer room and only hope the legislators of this country see it that way also.